Smith vs. O'Toole
I'm repeating myself but the Best Actor race is going to come down to Will Smith's end-of-the-movie crying card and struggling-single-dad uplift card in The Pursuit of Happyness (the film being a true story about a guy who was homeless and on the streets with his son but who turned things around when he became a financial trader) vs. Peter O'Toole's career-capping performance in Venus fortified with a three-point pitch: (a) he's never won an Oscar, (b) he wuz robbed 41 years ago when his Becket performance lost out to Rex Harrison's in My Fair Lady, and (c) it's now or never. That's the shorthand.
"Flags:" Do or Die<< previous
|
next >>"So Goes" attendance
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on October 22, 2006 at 12:38 PM
comment #1
muteprotest
says ...
Is it just me, or is this category weaker than it has been in quite a few years? The Will Smith film is likely to be hobbled by most critics right out of the gate, as we've just seen happen with Derek Luke. Tour de force or no, by all rights Whitaker should be running supporting (and would likely win if he did). Ditto Nicholson. That leaves Leo with vote-splitting dual roles, Damon in a stale, overblown procedural & Clooney looking hapless in monochrome Berlin.
Posted by muteprotest
at October 22, 2006 1:19 PM
comment #2
Nick J
says ...
Is Muteprotest's "stale, overblown procedural" The Departed or The Good Shepherd?
Posted by Nick J
at October 22, 2006 1:23 PM
comment #3
muteprotest
says ...
In other words, O'Toole should practically have this won by default. Not that he isn't deserving, mind you... but I'm still hoping for a surprise entrant like Christian Bale or Javier Bardem to make things a touch interesting.
Posted by muteprotest
at October 22, 2006 1:23 PM
comment #4
Kristopher Tapley
says ...
Been saying this for weeks, Jeff.
Posted by Kristopher Tapley
at October 22, 2006 1:24 PM
comment #5
muteprotest
says ...
I was referring to the The Good Shepherd, Nick. I would never describe a Scorsese film in those terms, except maybe Cape Fear.
Posted by muteprotest
at October 22, 2006 1:30 PM
comment #6
EDouglas
says ...
I don't think you should count Forest Whitaker out just yet... he's a well seasoned actor/director who has worked with many members of the Academy... I think he's still in the race as well. (Jeffrey, are you saying that you've seen Pursuit already?) I haven't seen Venus yet, but I'd hate to think that O'Toole ends up getting it just because he didn't get it for other things he should've gotten one for.
Posted by EDouglas
at October 22, 2006 1:38 PM
comment #7
Scott Feinberg
says ...
Ditto to what Kris Tapley said, Jeff. It would be much more interesting and revelatory to hear your insights on whether any of the guys currently competing for Actor (Whitaker, Nicholson) will make the move to Supporting...
Posted by Scott Feinberg
at October 22, 2006 2:26 PM
comment #8
Doghouse Reilly
says ...
Ryan Gosling gives the performance of the year. Somehow, nobody ever mentions this.
Posted by Doghouse Reilly
at October 22, 2006 2:31 PM
comment #9
Kristopher Tapley
says ...
I think Gosling's film has to be SEEN to have a shot at even being nominated, let alone winning. But he's in the hunt given the sheer brilliance of the performance, regardless.
Whitaker may have peaked too early to be a winner, and he's not gonna be switched to supporting. But hten he was never a likely winner in my view to begin with, however earth-shattering the performance. Something always seemed to be in his way. O'Toole really commands a lot of likelihood here, so we'll see how it goes...
Posted by Kristopher Tapley
at October 22, 2006 2:35 PM
comment #10
jeffmcm
says ...
There is zero reason for Whitaker to be considered a supporting actor. He's the star of the movie, gives its most interesting performance by far - he _is_ the movie. To think that he should be considered 'supporting' is an overly literary interpretation of what film acting consists of, and reinforces the movie's already inherent Eurocentrist bias.
Posted by jeffmcm
at October 22, 2006 2:40 PM
comment #11
Kristopher Tapley
says ...
The "inherent Eurocentrust" bias remains something you and you alone have read into the film, jeff.
Posted by Kristopher Tapley
at October 22, 2006 7:41 PM
comment #12
jeffmcm
says ...
No it isn't.
http://www.nypress.com/19/40/film/ArmondWhite.cfm
Why else make a movie about an African dictator through the eyes of a white guy, beyond the assumption that your white audience needs a familiar face to be their vehicle into his world? I'm surprised the notion is even up for debate.
Posted by jeffmcm
at October 23, 2006 12:04 AM
comment #13
EDouglas
says ...
"I think Gosling's film has to be SEEN to have a shot at even being nominated, let alone winning."
Exactly..it's Assassination of Richard Nixon all over again, but at least ThinkFilm has 42West (formerly the Dart Group) on board their campaigns this year. THINKFilm also has Candy, which though is a bit dark, I think it has three strong performances worth noting.
Posted by EDouglas
at October 23, 2006 5:05 AM
comment #14
Kristopher Tapley
says ...
YEah, if you're linking the consistently paranoid Armond White, we're done here.
Posted by Kristopher Tapley
at October 23, 2006 9:17 PM
comment #15
ArchiveGuy
says ...
Forest Whitaker is this year's Don Cheadle--never-nominated, well-respected vet finally gets a grab at the brass ring. He won't win, but it says something that he's in the mix.
Of course, that year, Jamie Foxx wins. I don't think Smith's chances are as good, though.
And Harrison's win over O'Toole wasn't nearly as egregious as when Peter lost to Cliff Robertson four years later.
Posted by ArchiveGuy
at October 24, 2006 11:34 AM